John Waters v Atheist Ireland

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Being a theocracy does not stop religion being an ideology any more than being secular stops politics being an ideology.

I know, but you have to admit, if a theocracy was a theocracy. Law class would be divine law, religion would be studied in different fields.

I think Christianity operates better when it isn't a theocracy.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked you if you would support its removal from schools then. First you said ethos doesn't matter, then you said it matters if it could affect governance so I'm asking you if the same rule would apply the other way around.

By ethos, I was referring to religious ethos. You brought in the red herring of politics, not me.

As for removing religion from education in a theocracy that's irrelevant. I don't think I would support a theocracy in the first place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you try to change the law enforcing religion in schools if Ireland was a theocracy due to it affecting governance since you're against schools with political ethos in a secular society for the same reason?

Again, I don't think I would support a theocracy in the first place.

You brought in politics, not me. I was referring to religious ethos the whole time. A political ethos would result in a negative effect on democracy. Religion does not.

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Should tradespeople such as carpenters, people who enjoy origami or people who are really into yoga get state funding to set up schools so they can teach children these things on the side?

It's just that I don't see why religion should be singled out for special treatment and why it should get state support to teach its ideology to children when people who want to teach the art of stamp collecting don't.

What would prevent them doing such a thing?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I know, but you have to admit, if a theocracy was a theocracy. Law class would be divine law, religion would be studied in different fields.

I think Christianity operates better when it isn't a theocracy.

I didn't ask whether you would like a theocracy or not. I asked you if you would apply the same rule if it went the other way, ie religion should be removed from schools if it affects governance. Your continued refusal to answer the question says to me that "it would affect governance" was an excuse because you first said that ethos doesn't matter but then added this caveat when I asked you about non-religious ideologies being taught. I also pointed out that not all non-religious ideologies affect governance but you have ignored this.

Basically you've searched for some irrelevant difference between the two and pretended it changes everything, and said that the same difference doesn't apply when it's the other way around (you may remember me mentioning this issue to you before)

Besides all that, having a country where 98% of schools have a religious ethos most certainly affects governance because it affects the whole mentality of the children who go to the school. Technically they're not supposed to use religious reasoning but their whole thought process has been influenced by the ethos that they were raised in, which is of course the whole point of raising them in an ethos. Even if the politicians themselves aren't religious they will be lobbied by their religious constituents.

Are you seriously going to tell me that raising 98% of children with a single ethos will not have any effect on how the country is run?

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I just respect that people of faith will want to educate their children in their respective faith and I think that's fair and I think that the Government should fund faith schools equally to secular schools.

I also respect that people of faith will want to educate their children in their respective faith... I just think it's fair that the government should run schools that leave religion to the so-called "parents of faith"!

I get the feeling we're not going to agree but hey, at least we're not still all talking about John Bloody Waters.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What would prevent them doing such a thing?

I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them, I was just asking Jakkass if he would support such a thing.

I suppose those things would be ok because they're just teaching skills, not ideologies so there wouldn't really be any objections. I was trying to come up with things that don't affect governance because apparently that makes all the difference between an ideology that's ok to teach and one that isn't.

The point is of course that all ideologies are political. Religious people lobby for things all the time. Abortion is illegal mostly because of religious people, gayness was illegal for years because of religious people, divorce was illegal because of religious people, there's a blasphemy law on our books because of religious people and countless other examples. Suggesting that schools with religious ideologies are ok because they don't affect governance is nonsense. They do affect governance and even if it didn't because Ireland is "not a theocracy", he still wouldn't support religion being removed from schools if it was, even though it would then affect governance.

As I said, nonsense

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't ask whether you would like a theocracy or not. I asked you if you would apply the same rule if it went the other way, ie religion should be removed from schools if it affects governance. Your continued refusal to answer the question says to me that "it would affect governance" was an excuse because you first said that ethos doesn't matter but then added this caveat when I asked you about non-religious ideologies being taught. I also pointed out that not all non-religious ideologies affect governance but you have ignored this.

It wasn't a "rule". I personally believe that teaching people that one particular party is better than another in school is damaging to democracy. Having a theocracy isn't beneficial if we want to enshrine religious belief. It's an utter red herring.

As for religion affecting governance, in our society right now, it doesn't. If the religious classes in schools encouraged people to interfere in governance I would see that as unacceptable.

The bottom line is, I support religious schools and secular schools. That's my ideal.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Basically you've searched for some irrelevant difference between the two and pretended it changes everything, and said that the same difference doesn't apply when it's the other way around (you may remember me mentioning this issue to you before)

Sam, the whole discussion concerning politics is a mere red herring and is utterly irrelevant in the first place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Besides all that, having a country where 98% of schools have a religious ethos most certainly affects governance because it affects the whole mentality of the children who go to the school. Technically they're not supposed to use religious reasoning but their whole thought process has been influenced by the ethos that they were raised in, which is of course the whole point of raising them in an ethos. Even if the politicians themselves aren't religious they will be lobbied by their religious constituents.

How does it affect governance?

Does looking at the parables of Jesus affect politics?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you seriously going to tell me that raising 98% of children with a single ethos will not have any effect on how the country is run?

I don't think so. Religion is religion and politics is politics. Religion is generally taught in school from the viewpoint of personal and social ethics. Or at least that is what I was taught at school.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It wasn't a "rule". I personally believe that teaching people that one particular party is better than another in school is damaging to democracy. Having a theocracy isn't beneficial if we want to enshrine religious belief. It's an utter red herring.

And teaching children that one religion is better than another cannot be damaging to democracy, or any aspect of society? I think the people in the north would disagree.

edit: oh and in Israel, and in Pakistan and in New York and in and in and in. To say that religion doesn't affect politics is bullsh!t

Jakkass wrote: »

As for religion affecting governance, in our society right now, it doesn't. If the religious classes in schools encouraged people to interfere in governance I would see that as unacceptable.

See above. Divorce, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drug laws, the blasphemy law and countless others. All affected by relgious motivations to some extent.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, the whole discussion concerning politics is a mere red herring and is utterly irrelevant in the first place.

Repeating that over and over will not make it true. You gave a BS reason that you don't think should apply the other around and isn't true anyway because religous ethos' do affect governance.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...How does it affect governance?

Does looking at the parables of Jesus affect politics?...

It would if enough people believed them to be the truth.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And teaching children that one religion is better than another cannot be damaging to democracy, or any aspect of society?

I was never taught that Christianity was better than any other religion in school. I was merely taught about the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the parables from what I can remember. I learned a smattering about Paul the Apostle through church.

Mind you I don't think the idea is harmful to society. You think that atheism is better than any other religious ideology, is that not also by extension harmful to society in your opinion?

I've gotten on fine with people of many religions despite my views on Christainity or Jesus Christ including Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and secular.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

See above. Divorce, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drug laws, the blasphemy law and countless others. All affected by relgious motivations to some extent.

I was never taught about any of these things at school. I don't think it is a part of any general school education for children.

I know for a fact that the blasphemy law is not religiously supported. None of the main churches in Ireland supported it as far as I know (Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, and Methodist).

I know for a fact that many pro-lifers do not argue their position from religion (Wait a minute, aren't you pro-life?). As for homosexuality in what respect?

Sam Vimes

An example of how religious ethos can affect governance:

There was an experiment done where some kids in a school in israel were told a story from the bible where a guy is told by god to go into a city, kill all its inhabitants and keep the valuables for the church and they were all asked if it was the right thing to do. Without getting into too much detail the vast majority said it was. Then pupils in the same school were given the same story but it took place in china and none of them said it was the right thing to do.

Do you think their religious ethos has had no effect whatsoever on how these people would run a country?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An example of how religious ethos can affect governance:

There was an experiment done where some kids in a school in israel were told a story from the bible where a guy is told by god to go into a city, kill all its inhabitants and keep the valuables for the church and they were all asked if it was the right thing to do. Without getting into too much detail the vast majority said it was. Then pupils in the same school were given the same story but it took place in china and none of them said it was the right thing to do.

Do you think their religious ethos has had no effect whatsoever on how these people would run a country?

You would need to cite your source if you want me to entertain your example.

Anyhow, I'm yet to see the relevance here. I thought you only opposed religious schools that were funded by the tax payer, not religious schools in general?

Are we finding out that you really just oppose religious schools and parents choice in general?

(This would bring this back on topic)

yupyup7up

why is there even such thing as atheistireland.ie? that is ridiculously stupid. I dont beleive in any form of religion or higher life form but I dont go around preaching it. Some non religious people can be as bad as the religious ones...:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I was never taught that Christianity was better than any other religion in school. I was merely taught about the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the parables from what I can remember. I learned a smattering about Paul the Apostle through church.

you were taught that it is true and all others are false.

Jakkass wrote: »

Mind you I don't think the idea is harmful to society. You think that atheism is better than any other religious ideology, is that not also by extension harmful to society in your opinion?

I don't want atheism taught in schools. I don't want any ideology taught in schools. I want facts taught in schools

Jakkass wrote: »

I've gotten on fine with people of many religions despite my views on Christainity or Jesus Christ including Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and secular.

Yeah you have but I think you'll agree many haven't

Jakkass wrote: »

I was never taught about any of these things at school. I don't think it is a part of any general school education for children.

You were taught that christianity is the true religion. Christianity has very strong views on those particular issues

Jakkass wrote: »

I know for a fact that the blasphemy law is not religiously supported. None of the main churches in Ireland supported it as far as I know (Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, and Methodist).

Regardless, it was put on the books through religious motivations, therefore religion can affect governance

Jakkass wrote: »

I know for a fact that many pro-lifers do not argue their position from religion (Wait a minute, aren't you pro-life?). As for homosexuality in what respect?

Yeah many do but many don't. Again religion affecting governance.

As for homosexuality, I believe Leviticus and Jesus had some views on that. Yes there are some non-religious people who don't like homosexuality but if one person uses their religion as a motivation, religion is affecting governance.

Sam Vimes

yupyup7up wrote: »

why is there even such thing as atheistireland.ie? that is ridiculously stupid. I dont beleive in any form of religion or higher life form but I dont go around preaching it. Some non religious people can be as bad as the religious ones...:rolleyes:

- Because people of other religions are being denied school places and because there is little choice but to put your children into a school where they'll be taught that this religion is true.

- Because of a law saying there is a €25,000 fine for insulting religious people

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You would need to cite your source if you want me to entertain your example.

Anyhow, I'm yet to see the relevance here. I thought you only opposed religious schools that were funded by the tax payer, not religious schools in general?

Are we finding out that you really just oppose religious schools and parents choice in general?

(This would bring this back on topic)

As we both know, I would prefer if religion was not taught, however this is a free country so people can teach their children whatever they want. My only point is that in a secular society it should not be funded by the state.


I have a source for that story but I don't think it's relevant unless you think such a thing could never happen? Do you think children cannot be taught to think like that when they're told that these actions were carried out by God?

And do you think that teaching children that your religion is true, with all the moral, ethic and general life rules that entails, can have no effect whatsoever on governance?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you were taught that it is true and all others are false.

Are you telling me what I was taught at school? Or will I tell you what I was taught at school?

It was generally just examples of parables, such as Parables of the Sower, concepts such as salvation and the ultimate truth of Christianity were never taught in great detail.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't want atheism taught in schools. I don't want any ideology taught in schools. I want facts taught in schools

I have no problem with religious ethos being taught in schools if parents want their children to learn about religious morality and religious lifestyle. I feel they should have that freedom. You don't. I prefer choice, you don't.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah you have but I think you'll agree many haven't

Actually Sam, I think most religious people get along just fine with eachother. The same could be said about most atheists.

Are you saying that religious people do not get on as well with people as atheists do? I think that's absolutely absurd, and based on assumption more than fact.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You were taught that christianity is the true religion. Christianity has very strong views on those particular issues

Read above. I've explained this. I'd prefer if you let me answer for myself instead of you answering for me

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Regardless, it was put on the books through religious motivations, therefore religion can affect governance

Religious belief and religious political activism is fine in my opinion. It is when religious leaders and churches directly decide policy that I start to get opposed to. This hasn't happened in the last few decades here. I recognise that it did happen in the past.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah many do but many don't. Again religion affecting governance

How? It doesn't affect the Government. As long as the Government can decide on issues without the direct influence of churches and church leaders I don't see any problem with religious political activism on any issue. Likewise I don't see any problem with Atheist Ireland activism against the blasphemy law, I do have a problem with Atheist Ireland's aim to remove what they deem to be "superstition and supernaturalism" as I feel it could have negative effects on freedom of conscience.

I don't think there is much more I can say on this issue. I support faith schools and secular schools both being funded by the Government. I'm pretty much set on that being the fairest approach.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...You think that atheism is better than any other religious ideology, is that not also by extension harmful to society in your opinion?....

Well that would be impossible becuase atheism isn't a religious ideology its an absence of one.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you telling me what I was taught at school? Or will I tell you what I was taught at school?

It was generally just examples of parables, such as Parables of the Sower, concepts such as salvation and the ultimate truth of Christianity were never taught in great detail.

So you're saying that someone who goes to a school with a christian ethos is no more likely to end up believing in the christian God, with all that entails in terms of mindset, than someone who went to a school where there was no religious ethos?

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no problem with religious ethos being taught in schools if parents want their children to learn about religious morality and religious lifestyle. I feel they should have that freedom. You don't. I prefer choice, you don't.

As we keep saying we have no problem with choice, just with a secular state funding that choice. And you're against choice in the case of a school with a political ethos. You think it would be damaging to democracy, I think teaching one religion as true is damaging not only to democracy but society as a whole.

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually Sam, I think most religious people get along just fine with eachother. The same could be said about most atheists.

Are you saying that religious people do not get on as well with people as atheists do? I think that's absolutely absurd, and based on assumption more than fact.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that bringing children up teaching them that any ideology is true above all others can only increase division and shouldn't be funded by a secular state

Jakkass wrote: »

Religious belief and religious political activism is fine in my opinion. It is when religious leaders and churches directly decide policy that I start to get opposed to. This hasn't happened in the last few decades here. I recognise that it did happen in the past.

So unless someone is an ordained priest you don't think his religious views can have any effect whatsoever on his decision making process? I think you should tell the people who voted for George Bush because of his religious belief that

CerebralCortex

Jakkass just so I'm clear. I'll use a case on which you can clarify your position.
I happen to find myself being a muslim with kids. I'd like to send them to school were they're thaught mathematics, languages, history etc. but I also want them to be educated in the ways of Islam. Are you saying it would be fair for me to expect the government to provide me a school with that one extra specialisation? From tax payers money? Would it not be more reasonable to ask the government to provide a standard education to all regarless of belief and then extras(which is what specialised religious teaching is) is up to the parent in question?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're saying that someone who goes to a school with a christian ethos is no more likely to end up believing in the christian God, with all that entails in terms of mindset, than someone who went to a school where there was no religious ethos?

I don't know what the "success" rate is, but I think that religious schools should be free to teach people about religious values. I think that secular schools should also exist, and that they should all be funded equally. That's pretty much the end line for me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As we keep saying we have no problem with choice, just with a secular state funding that choice. And you're against choice in the case of a school with a political ethos. You think it would be damaging to democracy, I think teaching one religion as true is damaging not only to democracy but society as a whole.

Most of the people in Ireland do have belief of some form. I think most would be happy to have both religious and secular schools funded equally. I don't think a minority of people should determine how the Government spends it's money for education for the majority. The solution there is to provide alternatives, not to throw out religious ethos.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So unless someone is an ordained priest you don't think his religious views can have any effect whatsoever on his decision making process? I think you should tell the people who voted for George Bush because of his religious belief that

I've already posted about this read this post again. I think that no one religion should decide policy, but by no means should Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics be restricted from discussing it. They just shouldn't directly decide it. That's the Governments job.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Jakkass just so I'm clear. I'll use a case on which you can clarify your position.
I happen to find myself being a muslim with kids. I'd like to send them to school were they're thaught mathematics, languages, history etc. but I also want them to be educated in the ways of Islam. Are you saying it would be fair for me to expect the government to provide me a school with that one extra specialisation? From tax payers money? Would it not be more reasonable to ask the government to provide a standard education to all regarless of belief and then extras(which is what specialised religious teaching is) is up to the parent in question?

If there is enough demand for an Islamic school one should exist. IF it teaches the Irish cirriculum, it should receive funding. I.E Irish, English, Maths, History, Geography as in the Irish cirriculum must be taught. They must also follow the regulations concerning the time allowed.

If the school does not teach the Irish cirriculum, but the Saudi cirriculum it should not receive funding. Just like International Schools do not receive state funding for not teaching the Irish cirriculum.

This is my view: Irrespective of religious ethos, or lack thereof, all schools that follow Government guidelines in relation to cirriculum should receive state funding.

I.E The Government is neutral to religion, it does not matter what ethos the school has as long as it teaches the cirriculum it will receive funding. It will not receive any more than any secular school.

It's not an "extra" in the Dept of Education guidelines 1 hour is left aside for religious schools to teach concerning their ethos. Secular schools could use that hour for a different purpose.

Sam Vimes

Your claim that teaching a religious ethos is ok because it doesn't affect governance is the greatest load of horsesh!t I've ever seen. Firstly, you said ethos doesn't matter as long as the curriculum is taught but then it turns out that it does matter if its political. Apparently it doesn't matter as long as its only religious ethos that's taught. you don't mind other religious ideologies being taught as long as you can teach yours but you don't want non-religious ones taught. What happened to freedom of choice

Secondly, I keep pointing out that not all non-religious ideologies are involved in governance and you keep ignoring this.

Thirdly, not only does a religious ethos have a massive effect on governance even in a secular state but you would not support the removal of religion from schools if Ireland was a theocracy, where it would affect governance. It is just another Jakkass excuse where you find an irrelevant difference and say it's crucial. I'm surprised you didn't say "the difference is that religion starts with an R and politics with a P and that makes all the difference"


The bottom line is that in a secular country, school is a placed to be objectively taught facts, it is not a place to teach children your ideology, regardless of the origin of that ideology be it political or religious. If you want to teach your children your religion that's your right but do it on your own time. If the state is to fund the teaching of one ideology they should fund them all. You can find excuses why political ethos shouldn't be taught but I can find just as many excuses as good as, if not better than, yours. The most crucial one being you have no proof that the authority behind your ideology even exists. That's a pretty important reason tbh

philologos

I'll agree to disagree with you about the nature of education, and about the nature of secularism in Ireland. As I said, there is a reason why I treat the word "secularism" with skepticism because it generally involves external agendas.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote:

I've already posted about this read this post again. I think that no one religion should decide policy, but by no means should Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics be restricted from discussing it. They just shouldn't directly decide it. That's the Governments job.

So you think that having a religious ethos does not necessarily effect a politician's method of governance. Fair enough. So why are you so sure that a political ethos will effect their method of governance that it should not be taught in schools?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll agree to disagree with you about the nature of education, and about the nature of secularism in Ireland. As I said, there is a reason why I treat the word "secularism" with skepticism because it generally involves external agendas.

To reiterate a point from above, you say that political ethos should not be taught because it could affect governance, while offering nothing to suggest that religious ethos doesn't affect it other than to keep saying it.

My response is that you have no proof that your God exists so your bible carries no authority, therefore it should not be taught in schools, especially not as being true.

we both have pretty good reasons so why don't we meet in the middle and just teach children the facts eh?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....It's not an "extra" in the Dept of Education guidelines 1 hour is left aside for religious schools to teach concerning their ethos. Secular schools could use that hour for a different purpose.

So in effect your saying its reasonable for me to be paying for other peoples religious teaching because they can't be bothered paying for the privillege themselves? Also would these schools with different religious teachings be open to anyone because they're state funded that might sweeten the deal?

Don't you think it would be easier for the government to fund just a school that teaches cirriculum and that anything extra cirricular such as religion (which isn't really needed by anyone except those who want it) is irrelevant.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So in effect your saying its reasonable for me to be paying for other peoples religious teaching because they can't be bothered paying for the privillege themselves? Also would these schools with different religious teachings be open to anyone because they're state funded that might sweeten the deal?

The Government decides how to spend the taxes. If they get funded the exact same as all other schools, I can't but see it as fair.

The only issue I have with most of you is that I believe all schools which teach the Government cirriculum should be funded.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't you think it would be easier for the government to fund just a school that teaches cirriculum and that anything extra cirricular such as religion (which isn't really needed by anyone except those who want it) is irrelevant.

I think the Government should allow for freedom of choice in respect to religious education. I've made that fairly clear by now I think.

I think that faith schools should exist and I think if atheists and agnostics find them disagreeable there should be secular schools as an alternative, but I don't think it is reasonable after having an alternative to stop funding faith schools in the same way.

That's my bottom line. I think I have made myself crystal by now.

Sam: Bear in mind you brought in the political aspect as an irrelevant red herring. I didn't. I've already clarified my position on it. Religion does not affect governance it aims to teach people social values, teaching people about a single political party could adversely affect democracy. That's my bottom line on that.

Having done that I am out. Nice talking with you, but I've basically said all I can say on the issue by now

pts

FYI, did a bit of Googling on the sources Dawkins cited for the experiment conducted with Israeli school children.
They are:

Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality by John Hartung;
The Influence of Ethnic and Religious Prejudice on Moral Judgment by G. R. Tamarin, (New Outlook, 9:1:49-58);
The Israeli Dilemma: Essays on a Warfare State, G. R. Tamarin, 1973. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.)

Still though, I think it's hard to disagree with Sam's point. It does seem very likely that children are influenced by what they are told by authority figures. If an authority figure repeatedly tells them about the greatness and wisdom of a entity x and then tells them the entity did something which instinctually seems like it is immoral. The children would more than likely rationalise it because of their belief in the greatness of x. It isn't important if x is Yahweh and the immoral act is destroying a city, or if x is the Chinese government and the immoral act is the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The only issue I have with most of you is that I believe all schools which teach the Government cirriculum should be funded.

Unless they're teaching their own ideology on the side. The way I see it they have ulterior motives. They're not teaching for the love of teaching, they're trying to pass on their ideology and using the schools to do it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the Government should allow for freedom of choice in respect to religious education. I've made that fairly clear by now I think.

As we all do. Not funding it is not the same as not allowing it

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Bear in mind you brought in the political aspect as an irrelevant red herring. I didn't.

I've already clarified my position on it. Religion does not affect governance it aims to teach people social values, teaching people about a single political party could adversely affect democracy. That's my bottom line on that.

Having done that I am out. Nice talking with you, but I've basically said all I can say on the issue by now

I think if you call it an irrelevant red herring, say religion doesn't affect governance and say this is what makes all the difference one more time and it might just stop being horse sh!t. I have backed up my point with examples and evidence, you have simply restated yours ad nauseum as if that makes it right

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Bear in mind you brought in the political aspect as an irrelevant red herring. I didn't. I've already clarified my position on it. Religion does not affect governance it aims to teach people social values, teaching people about a single political party could adversely affect democracy. That's my bottom line on that.

And Sam has repeatedly asked you why that should be the litmus test by which the suitability of an ethos in the school system is judged.

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

Still though, I think it's hard to disagree with Sam's point. It does seem very likely that children are influenced by what they are told by authority figures. If an authority figure repeatedly tells them about the greatness and wisdom of a entity x and then tells them the entity did something which instinctually seems like it is immoral. The children would more than likely rationalise it because of their belief in the greatness of x. It isn't important if x is Yahweh and the immoral act is destroying a city, or if x is the Chinese government and the immoral act is the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

You can disagree with it when you're pretending that a religious ethos can have no effect on governance and that that somehow makes it ok to teach your unproven ideology as being true

pts wrote: »

And Sam has repeatedly asked you why that should be the litmus test by which the suitability of an ethos in the school system is judged.

Because that conveniently fits into the point he's making. When it doesn't fit his point, in a theocracy, it no longer applies. Jakkass will always find a reason why any comparison is invalid. It's quite a skill actually